Defendant shall be punished by a fine of 200,000 won.

If the defendant fails to pay the above fine, 50,000 won shall be one day.

Punishment of the crime

On October 26, 2019, at around 20:30, the Defendant entered the D convenience store where the victim C is working in Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and the victim knew the victim that he was well aware of the her president, and then the victim stolen the creshing out of the outside of the market price equivalent to 1,300 won of other market prices.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. C’s statement;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to 112 reported case handling lists and arrest inspectors;

1. Article 329 (1) of the Criminal Act and Article 329 of the same Act concerning criminal facts, the choice of fines;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for confinement in a workhouse (when a sentence of suspension of execution of punishment is invalidated or revoked, the fine shall not be paid);

1. Article 62(1) of the Act on the Suspension of Execution and Punishment of Sentence 1 of the Criminal Act provides that the defendant's defendant's act is not illegal on the ground that he well-known the owner of convenience store business (E) and brought about difficulties in preventing the owner of convenience store business due to ordinary credit. Thus, the defendant's act is not illegal on the ground that the defendant's act was committed against the employee's explicit will of management of convenience store under the delegation of the principle of business administration at the time, so long as the defendant brought about galking against the employee's explicit will of management of convenience store at the time, it can be recognized that the defendant had the intent to pay the price in future, regardless of whether the defendant intended to pay the price in future. However, even if the defendant brought about galking from ordinary convenience store to ordinary convenience store, this is premised on the defendant's explicit consent at that time. Thus, the defendant's act is not unlawful on the ground that the defendant's act was not unlawful on the ground that the employee's act was clearly in the situation where the defendant's intent cannot be permitted.